YES! We're top of the ladder!!

Navy Blue Horse · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:39 pm **Posts:** 15848

The way I see it...if we didn't own them, someone else (i.e. Mathieson) would.

What it does illustrate is how precarious the AFL model is....propped up by TV rights, pokies and handouts from City Hall.

DocSherrin III · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:09 pm **Posts:** 17219

Navy Blue Horse wrote:

The way I see it...if we didn't own them, someone else (i.e. Mathieson) would.

He does!

Navy Blue Horse wrote:

What it does illustrate is how precarious the AFL model is....propped up by TV rights, pokies and handouts from City Hall.

It's not the AFL model - it's Carlton's debt reduction model. It's Bruce Mathieson's philanthropic gift to the club. In return, his nephew sits on the board and reports all happenings to Uncle Bruce.

harker · **Joined:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:27 am **Posts:** 2345

sstormin123 wrote:

Working in a gaming room you see the addicted constantly. They throw away countless amounts, become visibly upset/distressed. It's saddening.
It essentially comes down to greed, stupidity, weak will or a lack of desire to work for money that REALLY drives them there. None of which promotes sympathy.

Protecting and helping those who aren't willing to help themselves is a fruitless task.
If Carlton wisely invest in pokies that's a sound investment. A license to print money.

I used to say that also.

I guess it's hard to empathize unless you're actually a victim of addiction yourself.
I can't get my head around someone drawn to pressing a button awaiting three lemons to line up.
The joy of whatever that may bring about escapes me but it must be pretty insidious for something that starts of as having just a little bit of fun taking over your life.

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

I like the pyramid one.
One time I got all 5 in a row.
I was on my last cent.
Hurt my feelings.

kingkerna · **Posted:** Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:59 pm

GWS wrote:

nck wrote:

I'd feel differently if there weren't a fixed number of pokies no matter who owned them.

If Carlton did what North Melbourne have done, it would make absolutely $0 difference to any gambler's life as someone else will have the licence to the machine. The only exception is if people particularly gamble at Carlton venues to try and support the club which I've never heard.

Otherwise I wish we had the licence to every one of them

The problem is the clubs give the industry social legitimacy.

No-one would care too much if a new government came in and wound back the number of licenses if those affected we're limited to Mathieson, Packer, Woolies, Tabcorp etc.

But when the football clubs the people love are put in the position of having their cash cow taken away it's a different equation.

And the government, which has become dependent on the cash cows, is happy for the footy clubs to have that dependency because it makes it harder for them to remove the licenses which means they can maintain their own dependency.

Addicts all round.

disagree about the social legitimacy part, how many pokie players at our pubs know that the Carlton Football Club is involved? Do we make it well know at this venues?

Big Kahuna Boot · **Posted:** Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:44 pm

..i dunno, not pleased with the pokies revenue, but.. ..the club i follow has always [in it's own ways] been morally shadey.. ..am conflicted..

GWS · **Posted:** Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:52 pm

kingkerna wrote:

GWS wrote:

nck wrote:

I'd feel differently if there weren't a fixed number of pokies no matter who owned them.

If Carlton did what North Melbourne have done, it would make absolutely $0 difference to any gambler's life as someone else will have the licence to the machine. The only exception is if people particularly gamble at Carlton venues to try and support the club which I've never heard.

Otherwise I wish we had the licence to every one of them

The problem is the clubs give the industry social legitimacy.

No-one would care too much if a new government came in and wound back the number of licenses if those affected we're limited to Mathieson, Packer, Woolies, Tabcorp etc.

But when the football clubs the people love are put in the position of having their cash cow taken away it's a different equation.

And the government, which has become dependent on the cash cows, is happy for the footy clubs to have that dependency because it makes it harder for them to remove the licenses which means they can maintain their own dependency.

Addicts all round.

disagree about the social legitimacy part, how many pokie players at our pubs know that the Carlton Football Club is involved? Do we make it well know at this venues?

It's not the pokies players giving the social legitimacy it's the people defending the right of the clubs to have pokies... :lol:

How many TC members would be fiercely defending the rights of mega wealthy individuals to own pokies licenses?

I'm thinking it's less than those who'd defend the football clubs' right.

cimm1979 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:17 pm

I used to hate pokies a lot, now I just see them as one of the many ways people have their veins opened by business.

kingkerna · **Posted:** Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:28 pm

Rather not for profit organisations have them than wealthy companies

murraycray · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:28 am

Walk into any TAB and check out the punters present. Come back hours later, and you often see the same people still sitting there.
I've been known to have a convivial ale at the RSL, (TAB) Sports Bar, where it's not unusual to see people betting on every race, even silly bloody mystery bets, which to me are as mindless as pokies.

People will gamble......responsibly AND otherwise !

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

Getting our slice of the pie!

woof · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am **Posts:** 4919

My local cricket club gets a $3,000 sponsorship from our local pokies venue to assist in our junior development program.
Pokie venues by law are required to pump a fair bit of money back into the community.

Donstuie · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:55 am

What people do with their money is their business.

But yeah, can't say I'm proud that this is one of our main revenue streams, just as much from a perspective of being a poorly run organisation as any moral reasons.

GWS · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:43 am

woof wrote:

My local cricket club gets a $3,000 sponsorship from our local pokies venue to assist in our junior development program.
Pokie venues by law are required to pump a fair bit of money back into the community.

There 's that social legitimacy again. Spread around a little cash to legitimize the source. The Italian mafia do similar. It's funny how the government feels a need to tie that funding to the source rather than just collect it as a tax and then distribute it themselves.

I think you'll find that when it comes to pokies the costs are a fair way ahead of the benefits in the cost/benefit analysis people keep desperately asking for when it comes to other policy decisions. Not sure that we'll be seeing the Napthine government do a cost/benefit analysis on pokies any time soon.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:55 am

bluechucky wrote:

That's one ladder result North should be proud of.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:59 am

Hawthorn's pokies are getting some bang for buck!

Based on those figures each of our 300 machines generates $63,737, while the Hawks are leeching $150,822 per machine.

We can't even get gambling right! :lol:

BigBlueWave · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm **Posts:** 3073

Michael Jezz wrote:

It is a disgrace when the people's game is funded by exploiting the poor.

woof · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am **Posts:** 4919

GWS wrote:

woof wrote:

My local cricket club gets a $3,000 sponsorship from our local pokies venue to assist in our junior development program.
Pokie venues by law are required to pump a fair bit of money back into the community.

There 's that social legitimacy again. Spread around a little cash to legitimize the source. The Italian mafia do similar. It's funny how the government feels a need to tie that funding to the source rather than just collect it as a tax and then distribute it themselves.

I think you'll find that when it comes to pokies the costs are a fair way ahead of the benefits in the cost/benefit analysis people keep desperately asking for when it comes to other policy decisions. Not sure that we'll be seeing the Napthine government do a cost/benefit analysis on pokies any time soon.

Someone can correct me if I am incorrect but I am led to believe that the distribution that goes out is above 80% of bottom line. It is more than spreading a little cash.

Hornet · **Joined:** Sat May 21, 2005 5:15 pm **Posts:** 7354

camelboy wrote:

Hawthorn's pokies are getting some bang for buck!

Based on those figures each of our 300 machines generates $63,737, while the Hawks are leeching $150,822 per machine.

We can't even get gambling right! :lol:

fmd

DocSherrin III · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:09 pm **Posts:** 17219

YES! We're top of the ladder!!

Who is online